Aussie ISP iiNET might have won the battle in a High Court ruling today but the war internationally is swinging in the favour of the copyright holders, with service providers facing increasing pressure to act on notifications of infringement, according to one legal expert.
The long-running lawsuit ended in victory for the …

Bunch of cheap-skates.

How is Hong Kong "big"?

There certainly is a push to put policing onus on parties that aren't law enforcement. Like ISPs, but also banks, payment processors, and the like. Whatever the reason*, I think that soon enough we'll (re)discover why we set up a dedicated police force, and judiciary separate from that again, in the first place. Or maybe until we get fed up with laws being so easily bought by lobby groups. It has already become painfully clear to some of us.

Let's not forget that AFACT's "reasoning" ignored the obvious road to get what they said they wanted which was to do exactly what iiNet suggested they do; ergo they wanted something different. Cablegate made clear what, and showed not merely who is pulling AFACT's strings, but also the care with which iiNet was chosen as a suitable target. If big content get their precedent, it isn't because they have the moral high ground. It's because they bought the legislation fair and square, and nevermind the cost to people trying to run an honest business.

Analogy anyone?

>>>Hong Kong is still some way behind countries like the UK and US, she added, but is currently digesting the Copyright Amendment Bill 2011 which currently has provisions to make service providers liable for any copyright infringement unless they take “reasonable steps” to limit or stop the infringement “as soon as practicable”.<<<

So, if my house gets burgled, I can then sue the council (providing the way) for not putting up a road block to stop the thiefs getting there?

What next? Will I have to opt in (or out?) to drive up to my place with a dirty magazine in my pocket? No, that would be just stupid.

When should client connections be severed?

In this case, AFACT seems to have seen illegal downloads occurring over the iiNet network, but I don't think that iiNet's suggestion that the infringements should be passed on to police is inaction on their part.

Consider the wider implication where a company has a contract with their client to provide connectivity or web hosting. Shouldn't each country that has anti-copyright laws featuring ISP take-downs as a penalty also supply an agency that accepts complaints and produces legal takedown orders for ISPs so that they don't all get embroiled in expensive legal challenges.

To reiterate, shouldn't a takedown be a black and white thing from a national enforcement agency rather than a 3 way argument between copyright holder, ISP and ISP consumer/client?

Did IQ's suddenly drop while I was away

this seems to me to be another example of the RIAA bulling the ISP. The ISP won which means they were right and the RIAA were wrong. But the lawyers appear to be arguing that the judgement is wrong and the law in Australia is wrong based on the successes or perceived successes of the rest of the world.

So America to invade Australia next?

This article and the comments from the lawyer sound more like trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

AFACT is now painting the decision

The day after losing a land mark ruling in Australia, which was chosen as it would be easiest to bully into submissions (http://wikileaks.org/cable/2008/11/08CANBERRA1197.html), some random MPAA/RIA paid law firm says "It's OK, it doesn't matter anyway. We have, in the 3 years since this trial, managed to bully and bribe enough governments to ensure that no-one bothers to look at this ruling."

Fraudulant claims seem to have gone unnoticed

On YouTube, take down claims are being fraudulently used. If someone has a monetised video, a company that launches a copyright claim automatically gets the monetisation fees while the claim is in progress. The moment a counter claim is filed, the original claim is dropped, suggesting that bots are doing this. However, some while later, the same video gets flagged again and the cycle repeats.

"AgentOfDoubt" has been complaining about this on YouTube as it is happening to him.

It seems that no one is watching the watchmen and it all adds to the weight that these claims should go through a propper court process and require due legal process, rather than fast tracking the claims that copyright holders are making so that ISP's pull the plug without propper process being followed ... especially while there is money to be made off other peoples copyright content.

Prohibition doesn't work

Prohibition doesn't work. You can make something illegal and spend fortunes in time and effort, but if people want to do something, they will. There are so many examples of this through history it defies belief. Take just alcohol (America in the early 20th), prositution, drugs etc.etc.

In almost all cases, the answer is simple. Legalise it and take a rake. Drugs cost as much as they do and cause all sorts of problems because of this (robbery etc.) because they are illegal. if they were legal, they could cost a lot less and there could be a tax applied as well. Same for prostition. Already true for alcohol.

When will these idiots realise that when a significant percentage of people want something, they will get it whatever you do. Legal or illegal, it makes no difference. As the open source community is showing itself to be at least the equivalent in skill to the software development companies, they will simply create more and more difficult mechanisms to crack. It'll start with encryption and then get a whole lot deeper.

Essentially, these bodies are fighting a war they cannot possibly win. They might delay it, but won't win, at least not using these tactics. In reality, the majority of people simply want content at a sensible price. If they made the cost sensible and removed DRM etc. people would buy it. Yes, some wouldn't, but they're the same that recorded from the radio and things like that in the past. You weren't ever going to get money off them, so you're not really loosing anything.

Re: Prohibition doesn't work

@Mad Mike - the things that you cite are illigalisation of products, the provision of which won't harm anyone except the user. How do you suggest that a creative product be produced and then given away for free, without harming the creator of the product, in that they'll get no income from it?

Re: Prohibition doesn't work

"Essentially, these bodies are fighting a war they cannot possibly win."

A bit of wishful thinking.

"When will these idiots realise"

As I wrote during the SOPA storm, legislation will keep coming back - creative industries (in music this is mostly small not large players) need to enforce their rights. Calling them idiots and pretending they don't have rights just makes sure nobody listens to you.

If you don't want legislation, enlightened self-regulation will do. Be part of the solution.

What IF

... we just tell that one particular lawyer to bugger off?

Sorry but no, the opinion of one lawyer and rationalizing towards an end of making an article about it, is not sane, not evidence, and generally goes against common sense when you consider that ISPs will always opt to do what costs less and provides a more attractive service for prospective customers.